The point is that you're living in a fantasy world if you think that, if all legal educations are the same, all the lawyers coming out will be the same. It doesn't compute, just like if the football players in D-3 and at USC all get the same amount of practice time, they'll be the same. The students going into better schools are better. They're better before law school and better after law school. That's why firms- and NFL teams- look at top schools. If you passed some asinine anti-discrimination law that said firms had to hire as many people from Cooley as they do from Yale, you'd have a lot of really bad lawyers. Reality is elitist. You can rage against that all you want, but it's true.

Uhh... What about the fact that law firms routinely hire at historically black schools like Howard, and that URMs commonly do poorer on the LSAT? Are white kids that grow up in rich white families (i.e. the majority of top law school students) really better lawyers than blacks? I doubt that, and I think firm's seem to agree based on their hiring trends.

BTW- UIUC blows. They sent me information about there school and it made me laugh. They twist their numbers just about as badly as Cooley -- WTF is "top 10 public law school" (and the ridiculous statistics just go on). And the laughable median salary of $80K a year! People seriously pay $54K a year to attend UIUC to make $80K a year at graduation? f()ck that. Enjoy living in a cardboard box and partaking in bum fights over a 40 of Colt 45 after graduation!!

The point is that you're living in a fantasy world if you think that, if all legal educations are the same, all the lawyers coming out will be the same. It doesn't compute, just like if the football players in D-3 and at USC all get the same amount of practice time, they'll be the same. The students going into better schools are better. They're better before law school and better after law school. That's why firms- and NFL teams- look at top schools. If you passed some asinine anti-discrimination law that said firms had to hire as many people from Cooley as they do from Yale, you'd have a lot of really bad lawyers. Reality is elitist. You can rage against that all you want, but it's true.

Uhh... What about the fact that law firms routinely hire at historically black schools like Howard, and that URMs commonly do poorer on the LSAT? Are white kids that grow up in rich white families (i.e. the majority of top law school students) really better lawyers than blacks? I doubt that, and I think firm's seem to agree based on their hiring trends.

BTW- UIUC blows. They sent me information about there school and it made me laugh. They twist their numbers just about as badly as Cooley -- WTF is "top 10 public law school" (and the ridiculous statistics just go on). And the laughable median salary of $80K a year! People seriously pay $54K a year to attend UIUC to make $80K a year at graduation? f()ck that.

I didn't go to UIUC for law school. But thanks for playing. Your research and grammar skills will take you far in the legal world.

vansondon

The point is that you're living in a fantasy world if you think that, if all legal educations are the same, all the lawyers coming out will be the same. It doesn't compute, just like if the football players in D-3 and at USC all get the same amount of practice time, they'll be the same. The students going into better schools are better. They're better before law school and better after law school. That's why firms- and NFL teams- look at top schools. If you passed some asinine anti-discrimination law that said firms had to hire as many people from Cooley as they do from Yale, you'd have a lot of really bad lawyers. Reality is elitist. You can rage against that all you want, but it's true.

I think it's unfortunate that you think anti-discrimination laws are asinine.

What's so problematic about this little childish tantrum you're having is this premise that everyone graduating from "top law schools" are going to be good lawyers, and vice versa. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's just plain willful ignorance to posit such non-sense. Not all lawyers coming out of Yale are good, and not all lawyers coming out of Cooley are incompetent. The moxie and overall competence of the lawyer varies from individual to individual, it is not institutionally uniformed. You can study at the law schools of Yale, Harvard, Stanford, and Duke and still manage to fail the bar, just like you can graduate from Cooley and MSU and pass the bar with flying colors.

You've yet to even define "better" in this elitist thesis of yours. Have you even an original definition to bear? And even if you do, are you reasonable enough to recognize its inherent relativism? No one here is denying the reality of the elitist and discriminatory perceptions governing the legal employment market, but the debate here is about whether those perceptions are valid, right, and fair. And the answer is clear, no! Those perceptions are neither valid, right, or fair!

I reject your non-sense, and your foolish attempts to defend it. Of course, you're still entitled to your opinion, no matter how f ucked up it is.

If lawyers coming out of less prestigious school are so bad (as you've clearly implied), to what do you owe their competence and success in the law?

Lets turn to a more neutral source; Forbes. After all, in this superficial elitist environment you champion, money and success go hand and hand, yes?

Sure, there are plenty of lawyers who graduated from "top" schools who are successful, no one is denying that, and if we go to Forbes, here is a small non-exhaustive list of them: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/0514/140.html. But there are just as many (if not more) successful lawyers coming from other schools who are just as successful, if not more. You need to admit it.

There was a time where similar elitist perceptions like the ones you posit were used to stamp out law schools with part time programs (especially evening programs). I wonder where Georgetown would be if those perceptions had succeeded? There was also a time when these arguments tried to keep women and persons of color from having access to the legal education apparatus. Had there not been "asinine anti-discrimination laws" as you call it, would a successful and competent lawyer like Mr. Dennis Archer be the Chairman of Dickinson Wright PLLC, or the former president of the ABA? No.

Again, I reject your argument and your feeble attempt to defend it.

But I think it is fair to say, that given the selectivity of the "top" schools, and their small exclusive number in all of the law schools in the ABA arena, most lawyers who are successful, never attended these "top" schools.

What's so problematic about this little childish tantrum you're having is this premise that everyone graduating from "top law schools" are going to be good lawyers, and vice versa.

actually, the premise is merely that people coming out of top law schools are more likely to be good lawyers, and vice versa. true or not, this is a significantly less bold assertion than anything about "everyone graduating from..."

What's so problematic about this little childish tantrum you're having is this premise that everyone graduating from "top law schools" are going to be good lawyers, and vice versa.

actually, the premise is merely that people coming out of top law schools are more likely to be good lawyers, and vice versa. true or not, this is a significantly less bold assertion than anything about "everyone graduating from..."

Well that's just as problematic. How is that measured? How is that determined? We can disagree about degrees of boldness. The premise is the premise. The assertion is the assertion. And, it's all problematic.

Well that's just as problematic. How is that measured? How is that determined? We can disagree about degrees of boldness. The premise is the premise. The assertion is the assertion. And, it's all problematic.

so you agree with what i just said about boldness, which is all i'm looking for here.

Well that's just as problematic. How is that measured? How is that determined? We can disagree about degrees of boldness. The premise is the premise. The assertion is the assertion. And, it's all problematic.

so you agree with what i just said about boldness, which is all i'm looking for here.

No, I don't agree with what you said. But I respect your perception of the premise of the argument inasmuch as it differs from mine.

The point is that you're living in a fantasy world if you think that, if all legal educations are the same, all the lawyers coming out will be the same. It doesn't compute, just like if the football players in D-3 and at USC all get the same amount of practice time, they'll be the same. The students going into better schools are better. They're better before law school and better after law school. That's why firms- and NFL teams- look at top schools. If you passed some asinine anti-discrimination law that said firms had to hire as many people from Cooley as they do from Yale, you'd have a lot of really bad lawyers. Reality is elitist. You can rage against that all you want, but it's true.

I think it's unfortunate that you think anti-discrimination laws are asinine.

What's so problematic about this little childish tantrum you're having is this premise that everyone graduating from "top law schools" are going to be good lawyers, and vice versa. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's just plain willful ignorance to posit such non-sense. Not all lawyers coming out of Yale are good, and not all lawyers coming out of Cooley are incompetent. The moxie and overall competence of the lawyer varies from individual to individual, it is not institutionally uniformed. You can study at the law schools of Yale, Harvard, Stanford, and Duke and still manage to fail the bar, just like you can graduate from Cooley and MSU and pass the bar with flying colors.

You've yet to even define "better" in this elitist thesis of yours. Have you even an original definition to bear? And even if you do, are you reasonable enough to recognize its inherent relativism? No one here is denying the reality of the elitist and discriminatory perceptions governing the legal employment market, but the debate here is about whether those perceptions are valid, right, and fair. And the answer is clear, no! Those perceptions are neither valid, right, or fair!

I reject your non-sense, and your foolish attempts to defend it. Of course, you're still entitled to your opinion, no matter how f ucked up it is.

If lawyers coming out of less prestigious school are so bad (as you've clearly implied), to what do you owe their competence and success in the law?

Lets turn to a more neutral source; Forbes. After all, in this superficial elitist environment you champion, money and success go hand and hand, yes?

Sure, there are plenty of lawyers who graduated from "top" schools who are successful, no one is denying that, and if we go to Forbes, here is a small non-exhaustive list of them: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/0514/140.html. But there are just as many (if not more) successful lawyers coming from other schools who are just as successful, if not more. You need to admit it.

There was a time where similar elitist perceptions like the ones you posit were used to stamp out law schools with part time programs (especially evening programs). I wonder where Georgetown would be if those perceptions had succeeded? There was also a time when these arguments tried to keep women and persons of color from having access to the legal education apparatus. Had there not been "asinine anti-discrimination laws" as you call it, would a successful and competent lawyer like Mr. Dennis Archer be the Chairman of Dickinson Wright PLLC, or the former president of the ABA? No.

Again, I reject your argument and your feeble attempt to defend it.

But I think it is fair to say, that given the selectivity of the "top" schools, and their small exclusive number in all of the law schools in the ABA arena, most lawyers who are successful, never attended these "top" schools.

I think the thesaurus function on your computer has gone haywire.

Anyway, you're either being purposefully dense, or you're deluding yourself. But if you want something to measure, how about we look at bar passage rates at various schools. Or median salaries. Or something a touch more statistically significant than "look at this guy who went to TTT Tech".

But here's a thought experiment: you can hire only one employee. You have two prospective candidates. You know absolutely nothing about them, except that one went to Yale, and one went to Michigan State (a school I bring up because you brought it up). Who do you hire? If you answer Michigan State, you're a damned fool. And if you say something like "well you have to look at the whole package, an individual from any school can be as good as an individual from any other school", then you are deliberately missing the point. Of course they can be. But mostly they aren't.

Actually, I know exactly what your next responses are going to be:

-There's no way to measure "success", because everything is so damned elitist. Major firms mostly hire from the best schools because they're elitist. Judges get clerks from the best schools because they're elitist. Academics come from top schools because the academy is elitist. Etc.

(quick retort: remember how I said reality is elitist...)

- I'm ignoring the fact that [some dude] went to [X school] and he's doing all right for himself

(quick retort: how's the average person from the law school doing? What percentage even passes the bar?)

-I think everyone from all top schools become super fantastic lawyers, while everyone else is a failure and a mediocrity

(quick retort: strawman. I never once said that. But there are trends. Not everyone from USC goes on to the NFL. Someone from Mount Union just got drafted last year. That's not a proof that Mount Union is just as good as USC, if only the NFL wasn't so damned elitist about it.)